38 U.S.C. § 7109
Repealed. Pub. L. 115–55, § 2(u)(1), Aug. 23, 2017, 131 Stat. 1113]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2023 · leading case: Frances D'Aries v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (Vet. App. 2008).
Frances D'Aries v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (Vet. App. 2008). “Because the VA medical examination sought under the authority of 38 U.S.C. § 7109 and 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 was adequate for rating purposes, the Board provided adequate reasons or bases for rejecting the opinion of the treating physician, and there was no error in the notice…”
Barney O. Padgett v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 133 (Vet. App. 2005). “901 (1999), and 38 U.S.C. § 7109 . R. at 413. Dr. John K.”
Disabled Am. Vets. v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 419 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “3 3 The DAV I opinion stated: 04-7117, -7128 6 II The government argues that 38 U.S.C. § 7109 , relied on by the Secretary as authority for promulgating the regulation, creates the necessary exception to the “one review on appeal” rule in section 7104.”
Gambill v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “" 38 U.S.C. § 7109 (a). In Mr. Gambill's case, the Board concluded that the examiner who conducted the consultation examination "did not adequately address the etiology of [Mr.”
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993). “38 U.S.C.A. § 7109 (West 1991); see also 38 U.”
Shoffner v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 208 (Vet. App. 2002). “38 U.S.C. § 7109 (a); see 38 C.F.R. § 20.”
Winsett v. West, 11 Vet. App. 420 (Vet. App. 1998). “The Board’s request of the Spokane, Washington, VA Medical Center was “pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7109 (1994) and as set forth in [Veterans Health Administration] Directive 10-95-040L]” R.”
Austin v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 547 (Vet. App. 1994). “38 U.S.C. § 7109 During the course of proceedings in this matter, it has been contended that 38 U.”
Larry G. Tyrues v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166 (Vet. App. 2009). “"); see also 38 U.S.C. § 7109 (a) (the Board may seek an advisory medical opinion when such an opinion "is warranted by the medical complexity or controversy 21 involved"); 38 C.”
Edward T. Splane & Paralyzed Vets. of Am. v. Togo D. West, Jr., Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 216 F.3d 1058 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “Finally, it concluded that the requirement of 38 U.S.C. § 7109 (c), that the Board "furnish the claimant with a copy of [an IME] opinion when it is received by the Board," is satisfied if a copy of the opinion is delivered to the claimant's authorized representative.”
James A. Nohr v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 124 (Vet. App. 2014). “On remand, the Board exercised its judgment, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7109 and 38 C.F.R. § 20.901 , to secure a VHA medical expert opinion to address whether there is clear and unmistakable evidence that Mr.”
Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 517 (Vet. App. 1995). “Ulcer and Anxiety Conditions The appellant does not contest the Board’s decision to increase the disability rating from 20% to 40%, but argues that the BVA decision regarding his claim for an increased rating for his ulcer and anxiety conditions should be remanded for the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.